How Do Different Types of Alignment Affect Perceived Entity Status?
- 37 Downloads
Perceptions of entitativity are thought to be influenced by salient features such as the physical proximity and physical similarity of group members (Campbell in Behav Sci 3:14–25, 1958). But social interactions among group members involve a number of low-level alignment (Pickering and Garrod in Behav Brain Sci 27:212–225, 2004) and synchronization (Marsh et al. in Top Cogn Sci 1:320–339, 2009) processes. Conversational partners, for instance, become aligned in syntax, semantics, emotion, and bodily posture. In this paper, we explore whether alignment correlates with observers’ judgments of entitativity, and, moreover, which specific forms of alignment have the strongest effects on these judgments. Results revealed that only emotional alignment had on effect on judgments of entitativity. We discuss how future work may further assess the role of various dimensions in shaping the perception of group status in linguistic interaction.
KeywordsEntitativity Alignment Interaction Affect Social cognition
Parts of this Project emerged as a consequence of funding from a Human Social Dynamics award funded by NSF BCS-0826825 to the co-authors. This Project was also funded, in part, by a Grant from the Institute of Intelligent Systems at the University of Memphis.
- Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., & Lee, L. (2011). Chameleons in imagined conversations: A new approach to understanding coordination of linguistic style in dialogs. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics (pp. 76–87). New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
- Fusaroli, R., Konvalinka, I., & Wallot, S. (2014). Analyzing social interactions: The promises and challenges of using cross recurrence quantification analysis. In N. Marwan, et al. (Eds.), Translational recurrences (pp. 137–155). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., & Schmidt, R. C. (2009). Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(320), 339.Google Scholar
- Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). The interactive-alignment model: Developments and refinements. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 212–225.Google Scholar
- Reitter, D. (2017). Alignment in web-based dialogue: Who aligns, and how automatic is it? Studies in big-data computational psycholinguistics. In M. N. Jones (Ed.), Big data in cognitive science (pp. 246–269). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Riordan, M. A., Dale, R., Kreuz, R. J., & Olney, A. (2011). Evidence for alignment in a computer-mediated text-only environment. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2411–2416). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Steiner, P. M., Atzmüller, C., & Su, D. (2016). Designing valid and reliable vignette experiments for survey research: A case study on the fair gender income gap. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 7(2), 52–94.Google Scholar
- Thurston, J. A. (2012). Exploring group perception: The relationship between perception of entitativity and assessements of cohesion. Doctoral dissertation. Retreived from ProQuest (Accession No. 3553785).Google Scholar